Ray Paulick, perhaps my favorite editorialist, found the conditions of one California's simulcast outlets so oppressive he was compelled to append his findings to a very worthy article about the Eclipse Awards. He details his experience in Santa Barbara, but it could have been any of them, really. Find his comments below.
SIMULCAST HELL
Have you ever found yourself in a strange town on a big-race day and decided to attend a local simulcast outlet?
I was in Santa Barbara, Calif., July 15 and tried to take in many of the day's big stakes races at the Earl Warren Showgrounds. The experience gave me further evidence of the sad state of California racing, which has an antiquated off-track betting system hitched to the politically strong county fair associations.
For a $5 admission charge, patrons might expert to have nicer furnishings than the flea-market quality tables and chairs lined up cafeteria style in the two seedy rooms provided for horse players. Though there were a handful of large-screen monitors, most of the televisions were so small it was difficult to follow the action.
There were only 50 or 60 souls on hand to bet on an exciting day of racing. At least one of them plans to never go back.
1 comments:
Sorry, I sometimes forget that some readers aren't hardcore racing fans and gambling addicts.
By popular demand, simulcasting explained [courtesy of wikipedia]: In horse racing, a simulcast is a broadcast of a horse race which allows wagering at two or more sites; the simulcast often involves the transmission of wagering information to a central site, so that all bettors may bet in the same betting pool, as well as the broadcast of the race.
I s'pose the short answer is that simulcasting offers the ability to bet races from somewhere other than the track where the race is run.
Post a Comment